I rarely comment in my blogs about geopolitical affairs, reserving such things primarily for my News and Views from the Nefarium, but there is something significant enough going on that I decided to talk a a bit about it today. It was sparked by the recent border clash between India, the world's largest democracy and a nuclear power, and Communist China, also a nuclear power, and because L.G.R. sent me an article about the latest development in what I believe to be a massive  geopolitical realignment taking place.

By now most readers of this website will have read or heard about the border clash between elements of the Indian Army and the People's Liberation Army along the two countries' northern border.  In the wake of that clash, L.G.R. sent along the following article, which, I shall argue, is confirming we may be watching the formation of a new kind of bloc:

The reasoning given by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for the transfer of troops from Germany to China are clear enough:

When asked why the US had reduced the number of troops in Germany, Pompeo said that if US troops were no longer there, it was because they were being moved to other places.

He said the actions of the ruling Chinese Communist Party meant there were “threats to India, threats to Vietnam, threats to Malaysia, Indonesia and the South China Sea challenge. We are going to make sure the US military is postured appropriately to meet the challenges,” he said.

One of the reason Pompeo gave for the move was the recent clash between Indian and Chinese troops at Galwan Valley.

“The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) has escalated border tensions with India, the world’s most populous democracy. It’s militarising the South China Sea and illegally claiming more territory there, threatening vital sea lanes,” Pompeo said, a day after he expressed deep condolences to India on the death of 20 soldiers in violent clashes with the PLA troops at the Galwan Valley in Ladakh on June 15.

As Pompeo spoke of reprioritising and reallocating US defence in Asia, three US aircraft carrier strike groups that include other ships have been deployed in the Indo-Pacific zone in a show of force for the first time in about three years.

There are also plans to deploy American missiles in Kashmir, most probably Ladakh. To this extent US Defense Chief Mark Esper has stated in very clear terms that “The US is looking to deploy new ground-launched, intermediate-range missiles in Asia. We would like to deploy a capability sooner rather than later.”

The deployment of intermediate range American missiles in Asia to counter the growing Chinese threat and erratic behavior was, in my opinion, most likely discussed privately by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump during the latter's summit meeting in India. Where those missiles might be deployed has not yet been revealed, as almost anywhere one can imagine raises delicate political issues for the host country. But the deployment follows a little-noticed move by Russian President Vladimir Putin who has recently deployed tactical and intermediate range missile batteries in Siberia, and recent revelations from Japan that that country is considering the development of a preemptive strike capability, one which according to the Japanese themselves might include "kinetic weapons," i.e., "rods of God" weapons, a convenient way for Japan to develop a strategic strike capability that is not reliant on nuclear weapons. Additionally, Japan has indicated that it will make funds available for the U.S. reopening of its naval base in Subic Bay, the Philippines. Curiously, Beijing has been very reluctant to discuss how many casualties it suffered from its incursion into Indian territory, a point which in my opinion indicates that the "People's Liberation Army" may have had its nose badly bloodied, and this is certainly the view being put out in the Indian media. From the Chinese standpoint, if "population is power," then India is its biggest long term threat. The population of the two countries is closing; India's economy is now in the top five in the world; it is a nuclear power, has deployed very sophisticated weapons systems, and is also a space power.

So what's going on? Well, for one thing, the BRICSA entente of just a few years ago is, for all intentions and purposes, dead, and that means China's One Belt One Road initiative is in very serious trouble, if only for the simple reason that Mr. Modi's government did not role over and play dead. Anything but. Mr. Xi has overplayed China's hand, and now China is losing both trade, good will, and status. The Wuhan virus story certainly has not helped, and as I blogged yesterday, the rampant use of fraudulent gold bullion as collateral for massive loans - in the billions of dollars - calls into question the health of the whole Chinese economy. Mr. Putin's recent call for a new system of collective security could also be interpreted as a veiled concern about China, since in practical terms, "collective security" has historically meant that weaker powers combine to face a stronger power, or, a rising and "revisionist" power: Germany in the 20th century, and now China in the 21st. As China believes "population is power," the vast emptiness of Siberia is a tempting target, and while the Russian military is among the world's best in terms of technology and operational competence, sheer numbers alone could overwhelm Russia. Additionally, while Russia does need Chinese capital for its infrastructure development plans for Siberia, there's another power it can turn to: Japan, and as we have seen, Mr. Abe and Mr. Putin have been conducting quiet rounds of diplomacy and striking various trade deals. As I also reported a few months ago, the Japanese ran railroad tests on the Trans-Siberian for the Russians. In my opinion, that was a clear message from Mr. Putin to Mr. Xi: there are other countries that Russia can obtain high-speed rail technology from. In other words, while Russia would like to cooperate with China, it does not need it. And as I've also pointed out, Japan stands to gain much by a closer relationship with Russia, since Russia has energy resources Japan needs, and it's much closer to hand than the risky supply routes through the South China Sea. A Russian energy for Japanese capital and technology deal would suit the long-term interests of both countries quite well.

So what's going on? I suspect we're watching the formation of a "Quadruple Entente," an informal understanding among the four other Pacific powers vis-a-vis China; not a formal alliance as such, but a recognition on the part of each that they all face a common threat from a country that, as recent events have demonstrated, simply cannot be trusted, either politically, militarily, or economically. The Russians, like America, and pretty much everyone else, have had their technologies stolen by China, which then produces it without license, a fact that Russia has formally protested to Beijing, without effect. When one adds to this "Quadruple Entente" the other countries in the region with their own beefs against China and their own significant and justifiable reasons to mistrust it - Indonesia, The Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, South Korea and so on - and the encirclement of that country is almost total.

All this means that Mr. Xi's regime is both very weak, and very dangerous, for having boxed China in as a result of his own policies, he must now appear "tough" to ward off growing internal opposition, and he desperately needs a "victory" on the world stage. And these developments also mean that even if he is replaced by some other faction within the Chinese Communist Party, the emerging "Quadruple Entente" is not likely to go away any time soon, especially when one considers the state of affairs in the USA, which are very bad. The domestic instability - which in my opinion is not going to go away soon -  of the USA means, inevitably, that other world powers increasingly realize that the USA itself is no longer the stable ally it once was, and with a powerful, embarrassed, but weakened China on the scene, USA or no USA, there will be at least a Pacific Triple Entente of India, Japan, and Russia.

The problem for the "Quadruple Entente", to put it country simple, is not China. It is Chinese Communism.

There is another associated problem here. With the growing instability of the USA as an ally, this is forcing both Japan and Germany (along with the rest of Europe), to reevaulate their own security needs. And in all cases, the conclusion is the same: "we need to expand our militaries; we can no longer rely on the USA." This will lead inevitably, in my opinion, for calls for those two nations, plus India, to have a permanent seat on the UN Security council with the veto power that goes with it.

And there's one more lesson to beware of here. The "collective security" of the original Triple Entente - Russia, France, and Great Britain - was for but one purpose, to surround and isolate the "revisionist power" of that day: Imperial Germany.

We all know how well that worked out...

See you on the flip side...



Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. FiatLux on July 4, 2020 at 2:23 am

    What I want to know is why the about-face on China by the Western PTB? For decades, Western oligarchies were only too happy to send China its manufacturing and allow China to pirate or purchase Western technology. Now, suddenly, China is public enemy #1. What’s going on behind the scenes??

  2. Loxie Lou Davie on July 2, 2020 at 8:29 am

    IS the Cecil Rhodes “setup” still in effect??? I wonder!!!

  3. Loxie Lou Davie on July 2, 2020 at 8:28 am

    Is the U.S. still under the control of The Crown??? i.e.

    IS the Cecil Rhodes “setup” still in effect??? I wonder!!!

  4. goshawks on July 2, 2020 at 3:21 am

    What I find interesting is how the Chinese gov’t shot itself in the foot. The deals for the New Silk Road and such were going-along without much fanfare. Occasionally, the Chinese had a “we get the assets if you default, even if it is in your land” clause written into the contract, causing local anger. But not much resistance to the money and the infrastructure deals…

    Then, the Chinese gov’t decided to claim the entire South China Sea, based on almost nothing (the Nine-dash line). This one thing soured much of the world on doings with China. Boy, those were expensive atolls…

    Is the Chinese gov’t really that stupid? The whole Belt and Road Initiative was collapsing because of a few island groups which nobody wanted. China needed the New Silk Road Initiative to keep the ‘demand’ side going for its supply-side industries. And now?

    (Since they were now limping one one foot, they decided to shoot the other foot. China would have ‘inherited’ Hong Kong in another 25 years, by treaty. All it had was to sit back and bide its time. Now, the sweeping new “national security law” has demonstrated to onlookers how power-mad the Chinese gov’t actually has become. This feeds back into any New Silk Road deals. Bang, again…)

  5. Sandygirl on July 1, 2020 at 10:27 pm

    6/20 – “Under an agreement announced last year, the U.S. already announced it was sending about 1,000 more troops(from Germany) to Poland, and progress is being made, officials said, to lay the groundwork for those moves. Based on the agreement with Poland, the U.S. will add a division headquarters, a combat training center, an unmanned aircraft squadron and structure to support an Army brigade that could rotate in and out of the country.”
    Duda mentioned plans announced Wednesday by Google to invest over $1 billion into an information technology center in Poland.

    There’s deals to be made worldwide.

  6. Nicolas on July 1, 2020 at 7:58 pm

    I don’t come often here and again I’m coming too late for posting on a topic.
    I wanted to put an important comment here :
    about the french cosmologist, engineer and mathematician Jean-Pierre Petit and his Janus model.

  7. marcos toledo on July 1, 2020 at 7:51 pm

    It is ironic that this website is titled the Great Game of India. It was the great game of the UK at the beginning of the last century that got Tibet in trouble. Now this article has answered the question of why China invaded Tibet in 1950 the Raji still lives and the great game against Asia continues. All hail the puppetmasters deadly Game of Thrones.

  8. Robert Barricklow on July 1, 2020 at 12:21 pm

    India needs any enemy other than the people they govern. As WW1 took care of the growing tension and rebellion of global masses against their respective leadership. That leadership shifted to war to accomplish many-tiered goals. Both India’ and China’ leaderships need each other; a handshake to agree to disagree?
    War is their greatest treasured tool; and resulting war profiteering k’ching$, are highly respected by their puppet masters.
    The infamous list of nations to profit: #1, U.S.?

    The previous similarities to the Civil War’s prelude; are here as well, for WW1’s prelude to: a war to end all wars.

    I wonder how long this “war’s” been on the drawing board. Was covid1984 op, the race op, contact tracing op and other ops – prelude to war?
    So above, so below?

    Baal Gates killer ap, aka vaccine; has no where near the population control of a hot-damn world war.
    Now, “they” don’t plan to kill the cash/power cow. But, others, at the margins of power; may want it to go hot?

    Yet, the growing wealth disparities; exasperated by the purposed covid1984; are causing populations to rebel against their leaders and other icons of status quo. War is the usual suspect called into the line-up for precisely this kind of precrime.
    On that the algorithms of all the countries, corporations, and plutocrims agree.
    Probably, even most of the unaccountable humans too.

    • FiatLux on July 4, 2020 at 2:17 am

      Good points and questions.

  9. DanaThomas on July 1, 2020 at 10:16 am

    Whatever their factual substance, there are rumours going around that the man in Swamptingon is currently not able to effectively issue orders to some components of the forces. Probably lots of people in lots of places are tired at having to “put the world on hold” for several months every 4 years as the presidential selections are slogged out….

    • basta on July 1, 2020 at 8:24 pm

      I very much doubt that any US preznit has had effective control of the armed forces since Eisenhower. Last one that thought he actually did had his brains blown out in broad daylight.

  10. Tom on July 1, 2020 at 10:10 am

    One aspect of Chinese strategic control to keep an eye on is it’s control over the headwaters of India’s largest rivers via Tibet. Let the water wars begin.

  11. basta on July 1, 2020 at 8:42 am

    So, Chinese “containment?”

    Of course the rich irony here (and duplicitous long-term strategy) was that the US took the lead in the “opening” China, regularizing relations, getting them MFN trading status and into the WTO. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, if they have any, but so that USA Inc. could offshore manufacturing, dropping prices and conveniently wrecking the West’s middle class over a generation. Once the “overpaid” workers were on the ropes and beholden to the gubmint, they started to bring manufactuing back — of course at third-world pay scales. And also of course, with all that manufacturing wealth, China became expansionist and uppity. How convenient.

    • guitardave on July 1, 2020 at 10:46 am

      Excellent points, B.

    • goshawks on July 2, 2020 at 2:57 am

      Basta, yes, there has been a war against empowered workers going-on for several decades (if not forever). The workers lost. It will be interesting to see if the workers realize how outmaneuvered they were, and adopt different tactics…

  12. Katie B on July 1, 2020 at 7:48 am

    Also, Johnson’s most recent speech (although worryingly sounding a bit like a green commie manifesto) he did assert that we would be reshoring a lot of industry and he did reference the fact that British ideas had been stolen. A reference to China? In the 80s working class people still remember the Chinese coming over into their factories, to look at our skilled analog machines which were bought by the Chinese. They rightly saw this as selling off British IP on the cheap. And what happened? They all lost their jobs and were replaced by digital machines. It didn’t last long as these junk machines didn’t work (you can’t trust it). And I mean this in absolutely no offence to the Chinese people who are more than capable of using their high intellects to create their own technology. However, by raising this point, I want to draw attention to possible clandestine pacts that may have been forged between the leadership of the UK and China back in the 80s.

  13. Richard on July 1, 2020 at 7:27 am

    It’s unfortunate that there are those that believe democracies are soft and weak for the plucking. They haven’t a clue. Nor is this 1962, either.

    The Party might think that they have a country under control, but they do not seem to have a willing nation and seem deluded to think that they do. To impose through force, intimidation, and tyranny is not a result of willingness. A support mechanism that that 90 Million out of 1 Billion plus depend.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events